Silver Line to Chelsea

^I think they could move the boxes out from under the bridge and bump the tracks over (and hang the RR signals from the bridge) if they really wanted to. I'm not saying that's cheap, but it isn't as bad as needing to replace the bridge.
 
What EGE said. Look at that last set of pictures around Washington Ave.:

Commuter rail + busway + power lines w/necessary side access to the towers = literally not an inch to spare.


Eastern Route in Chelsea is not like the Lowell Line in Somerville. The SCP extension follows a stretch of Lowell ROW that historically was 5-6 tracks out to Lowell St./Somerville Jct. All of the space for GLX and the path are available within the original property lines, with no land acquisition required. It's only around stations and a couple spots where the embankment was more recently backfilled to stabilize the cut where they have to do the most expensive bits of retaining wall construction to judiciously widen out the cut.

The Eastern was capped at 4 contiguous tracks from Everett Jct. (the Monsato siding/Everett Terminal/Saugus Branch split on the Everett side of the bridge) to Broadway. Other than various freight sidings forking off to individual buildings en route, that was all it ever historically was. The power lines, which were added in the last 50 years, cannibalized all buffer space around the tracks and spread out onto most of the long-vacated small freight turnouts. East of the Mall you're at the ROW property lines right this second with the ongoing construction. Shivving in a path requires all-new land acquisition on the blocks where embankment room is physically possible, at blowout cost. And then some blocks, like Washington-Arlington-Spruce, it's just physically impossible because of abutters and Route 1, and you'll have vexing breaks in the path. You can't move the power lines elsewhere; they connect the Everett power plant to the substation that provides juice to parts of downtown Chelsea and Revere Beach.


This is the same reason why the SCP can't be spurred up the Fitchburg Line to Union Sq. or further up the Lowell Line to College Ave. and Route 16. Land acquisition costs make it a total no-go regardless of what Google Maps may show for 10 ft. wide green strips flanking the ROW. For all the engineering complexity of doing the SCP the 2 miles from Lowell St. to Lechmere, it would probably cost twice as much for a 2/3 mile spur to Union because of private property acquisition and all the tricky mitigation required for commercial businesses that would lose their rear building access.

Well. It should be a long term goal then to attempt to get the abutters to grant an easement as part of a public-private partnership. The path potentially could still be a success if it had a brief detour in the downtown Chelsea part but then picked up in the industrial area.

Detour could be chestnut - sixth - spruce and back to the row
 
Well. It should be a long term goal then to attempt to get the abutters to grant an easement as part of a public-private partnership. The path potentially could still be a success if it had a brief detour in the downtown Chelsea part but then picked up in the industrial area.

Detour could be chestnut - sixth - spruce and back to the row

No, it shouldn't be a long-term goal. Where in our urban manifest destiny does it say that every transit line must have a side path bolted to it hell, high-water, cost-be-damned, with private abutters unilaterally sacrificing property? That is not an assumption rooted in the real world.


Try to do a path here and you start from Day 1 with at least 2 blocks of nonintuitive on-street detour, seriously compromising usability. Then it's vanishingly unlikely that enough abutters will agree to easements; no private abutters are going to feel obliged to do that. It's a bona fide hardship when it chops down already small residential backyards and rear access driveways, and potentially a code violation if it impedes fire equipment access to building rear exits. Dressing it up in the flowery language of "public-private" partnerships doesn't make a stick-up under threat of force suddenly stop being a stick-up under threat of force. Throw on top of all that it's impossible to move the power lines to give the path any sort of acceptable buffer from the trains screaming by on the opposite side of the fence; they can't be trenched because of buried streams in the area and the floodplain of the Chelsea River.

You end up with a flat-out bad transit project: a path with so many unsolvable interruptions and width compromises that it's barely usable, and has no hope of getting substantially better. An unsolvably flawed path that comes at extreme property acquisition cost, mitigation, and torched working relationships for its barely usable state. It is not a down payment towards a goal of a complete or near-complete path; you will never reach that goal here. So it's just off-scale government waste in service of self-satisfaction for somebody's Mapmakers' OCD. Excessive waste on an objectively bad project is excessive waste on an objectively bad project, period. Even when you dump that waste into builds on a "friendly" mode. You can't throw enough money at a community path through Chelsea and net a useful result, so it's shitty public policy to go for broke towards a non-useful result.
 
No, it shouldn't be a long-term goal. Where in our urban manifest destiny does it say that every transit line must have a side path bolted to it hell, high-water, cost-be-damned, with private abutters unilaterally sacrificing property? That is not an assumption rooted in the real world.


Try to do a path here and you start from Day 1 with at least 2 blocks of nonintuitive on-street detour, seriously compromising usability. Then it's vanishingly unlikely that enough abutters will agree to easements; no private abutters are going to feel obliged to do that. It's a bona fide hardship when it chops down already small residential backyards and rear access driveways, and potentially a code violation if it impedes fire equipment access to building rear exits. Dressing it up in the flowery language of "public-private" partnerships doesn't make a stick-up under threat of force suddenly stop being a stick-up under threat of force. Throw on top of all that it's impossible to move the power lines to give the path any sort of acceptable buffer from the trains screaming by on the opposite side of the fence; they can't be trenched because of buried streams in the area and the floodplain of the Chelsea River.

You end up with a flat-out bad transit project: a path with so many unsolvable interruptions and width compromises that it's barely usable, and has no hope of getting substantially better. An unsolvably flawed path that comes at extreme property acquisition cost, mitigation, and torched working relationships for its barely usable state. It is not a down payment towards a goal of a complete or near-complete path; you will never reach that goal here. So it's just off-scale government waste in service of self-satisfaction for somebody's Mapmakers' OCD. Excessive waste on an objectively bad project is excessive waste on an objectively bad project, period. Even when you dump that waste into builds on a "friendly" mode. You can't throw enough money at a community path through Chelsea and net a useful result, so it's shitty public policy to go for broke towards a non-useful result.

While there is plenty of "mapmaker OCD" to go around, this is not it. Having this connection - theoretically - would be absolutely huge, because connectivity into Chelsea and basically from Boston proper/Cambridge/Charlestown into East Boston/Chelsea/Everett is extremely limited by bike at the present. It's a major problem.

Now, I don't support connecting any dots on maps, even useful ones, for unlimited costs. I dont know the details of what it would take, either - you talk as if you do, although I'm not so sure in this case, so a couple points:
- I'm not in favor of acquiring easements over small land holdings, but on at least one side of these tracks, from Market Basket to 99/16, there are huge land holdings/parking lots/warehouses. Their private property rights are, I guess, equally important to those of the folks in the triple deckers, but it logistically far less of an imposition and if you ask me - not even a very socialistically minded individual - those are the properties where getting a little thin strip of land usage for an easement of passage is not such a big deal and sooner or later we're going to have to do this, since there isnt any open space left. United Rentals and Matucchio Metals aren't going to be there forever. It would be better to think about this NOW, not in 20 years when the whole area is being developed (maybe not residential, but someday the space north of the tracks will be denser to at least some degree than it is now).
- Using the government flexibly, to encourage allowances for things like this, is not a bad thing on its face. "Public private partnership" is more than whitewash.
- if the power lines being on the south side and some houses being on the north truly actually do prevent a trail, so be it. No, I'm not in favor of spending billions just for that.
- I disagree that a slight convolution of a trail through downtown Chelsea would disrupt passage if there were an otherwise straight path.
- the LNG terminal is obviously not going anywhere, either, but the undeveloped land around here is also not expanding. If there is any long range potential for a ROW through here, it should be considered now, not in 30 years.
- But, if it truly is an "an unsolvably flawed path" then so be it...
 
FK and all of the rest of you who think that if we don't do something immediately the population will overwhelm us -- Boston is not Hong Kong or any of the Mega Cities in Asia currently on exhibit at the MFA

In point of fact take a circle somewhat inside of Rt-128 passing through Boston, Brookline, Watertown, Somerville, Medford, Lynn -- most of these cities and towns are less populated than they were 30 or 40 years ago

Consider Somerville -- once it was very densely populated with a lot of industry -- today not so much of either -- somewhere around 1910's population
  • 1910 77,236 +25.3%
  • 1920 93,091 +20.5%
  • 1930 103,908 +11.6%
  • 1940 102,177 −1.7%
  • 1950 102,351 +0.2%
  • 1960 94,697 −7.5%
  • 1970 88,779 −6.2%
  • 1980 77,372 −12.8%
  • 1990 76,210 −1.5%
  • 2000 77,478 +1.7%
  • 2010 75,754 −2.2%
  • 2014 78,901 +4.2%

What the above shows is a microcosm of Detroit or Buffalo with some indications that Somerville is finally starting to grow once again

Some of the others in alpha order:
  • Arlington peaked @ 53,000 in 1970 was still declining through 2000 may have leveled off @ 43,000 in 2010
  • Boston peaked at 800,000 in 1950 had its "Detroit Moment" in 1980 @ 560,000 and is today [2014 estimate] either approaching 1910's population or 1970's population of about 650,000
  • Brookline peaked in 1970 had a recent minimum in 1990 and today is approaching the 1970 population of 58,000
  • Cambridge -- Yes even Cambridge -- peak @ 120,000 in 1950 hit a minimum in 1980 @ 95,000 and is back to 110,00 [2014 estimate] which it had between 1920 and 1940 or also sometime just before 1960
  • Chelsea peaked at 45,000 in 1930 and reached a minimum in 1980 @ 25,000 -- today its population is similar to 1960's @ about 35,000
  • Everett peaked in 1930 @ 48,000 minimum in 2000 @ 35,000 today a bit over 41,000
  • Lynn peaked at 102,000 in 1930 declined to 78,000 in 1980 and returned to 90,000 for the first time since 1970 in 2010
  • Medford peaked in 1950 @ 66,000 and has leveled off @ 56,000
  • Newton peaked @ 92,000 in 1960 minimum of 82,000 in 1990 returned to 88,000 in 2010
  • Quincy is an outlier with slow growth since a local minimum in 1980 and today is the largest its ever been @ 93,000
  • Revere peaked @ 43,000 in 1970 then stayed flat for 30 years -- today it is the largest it has ever been @ 52,000
  • Saugus peaked @ 25,000 in 1970 essentially flat since
  • Watertown peaked in 1960 and as of 2010 it was still declining

while not exhaustive you will not see unrestrained bursting at the seems growth in any of these cases -- indeed the vast majority of the growth in the Greater Boston has been if far flung suburbs out on I-495 -- Places such as Plymouth where the population has increased 4 fold since 1960 to today's 58,000 estimate

Editorial Note I experienced very rapid growth -- I spent 10 years in Austin TX
  • I arrived in 1974 when the population was between 1970's 253,000 and 1980's 346,000
  • I left in 1984 when the population was enroute to 1990's 466,000
  • since then the population has continued to increase past Boston's in 2000
  • to 2010's 790,00
  • with the 1 millionth Austin resident arriving soon [912,00 estimate in 2014]
 
Last edited:
Bloviate all you want, but areas of very low density are diminishing and if people had raised concerns about protecting rights of way 40 years ago we'd have a lot more of them left than we do now.
 
My understanding is that the decline in population is also matched by a decline in the number of people per household; thus with modern living trends you need a much larger number of units for the same number of people.
 
whigh: raw population is misleading: in 1960 -1970 something like 50% of population was kids (who walked to stuff) and another 10% was a stay at home mom (who did not make commute trips)

We demand way more mobility per capita because households are now dominated by 2 wage earners who each own a car and make a daily commute trip.
 
While there is plenty of "mapmaker OCD" to go around, this is not it. Having this connection - theoretically - would be absolutely huge, because connectivity into Chelsea and basically from Boston proper/Cambridge/Charlestown into East Boston/Chelsea/Everett is extremely limited by bike at the present. It's a major problem.

Except...YOU CAN'T HAVE THE CONNECTION. It's impossible to string it together without punitive eminent domain that no one will allow. Therefore, you either throw good money at useless disconnected pathlets or spend your money on some other pedestrian project that actually nets something useful.

I'm sorry...there is no "theoretical" connectivity here. It can't be done. All the "yeah, but's. . ." in the world do not make the physically impossible turn "theoretical". It's a devastatingly simple question: do you want to blow your wad on good government projects, or bad? This isn't an exercise in mental gymnastics for imagining an alternate universe where bad is not-bad.

Now, I don't support connecting any dots on maps, even useful ones, for unlimited costs. I dont know the details of what it would take, either - you talk as if you do, although I'm not so sure in this case, so a couple points:
- I'm not in favor of acquiring easements over small land holdings, but on at least one side of these tracks, from Market Basket to 99/16, there are huge land holdings/parking lots/warehouses.
Yes. Exactly. Prohibitively large number of private property acquisitions to net enough contiguous path. This is exactly what I meant about throwing good money after bad.

Their private property rights are, I guess, equally important to those of the folks in the triple deckers, but it logistically far less of an imposition and if you ask me - not even a very socialistically minded individual - those are the properties where getting a little thin strip of land usage for an easement of passage is not such a big deal and sooner or later we're going to have to do this, since there isnt any open space left.
Stop right there. This assumption of innate altruism has no basis in reality. Residential abutters with small backyards are not going to be willing to give up what little personal space they have. Yards are hard to come by; have a house with one, and you're going to be loathe to see it chopped down. They are not going be swayed by "Well, we haven't got any open space left...so fork it over." That's Urban Renewal planner ivory tower mentality...the exact kind of government assault on property rights that led to the most infamous of highway revolts. Reappropriating that mentality to greener transportation like a footpath does not change the hostility of the action to these abutters. It is the same as "We need your backyard for a highway we're building because reasons". Property rights are important enough that "We need your backyard for a footpath we're building because reasons" provokes exactly the same hostility. There are decades of history repeating itself to back that up. There is nothing backing up altruism to fork it over for a "friendly" path other than intensity of one person's personal belief.

You will never acquire this residential property without eminent domain, surrendering a chunk of flesh in lawsuits, and a boondoggle of an overpay. That kind of tactical nuclear strike is a proven loser, and makes for bad policy.

United Rentals and Matucchio Metals aren't going to be there forever.
How do you know that? Matucchio has been in business for 60 years at that site, and are a locally-owned mom-and-pop. What evidence is there that they're hot to take a wad of "Go away!" money?

It would be better to think about this NOW, not in 20 years when the
whole area is being developed (maybe not residential, but someday the space north of the tracks will be denser to at least some degree than it is now).
No, you should not. Acting on a fragmented, non-useful transit project for the sake of "NOW" is terrible government policy. Your supposition that this thing can eventually be stitched together into something useful relies on nothing but wishful thinking that someday the land will be available because someday people's altruism will get the better of them. There is zero, nada empirical evidence backing up any of those suppositions...let alone ALL of those suppositions which must prove true in tandem to ever have the chance of stitching together a useful path. And you want to start shoveling money at it now?

No...that's terrible public policy. Real-world project evaluation declares that a nonstarter in a nanosecond. You can believe what you want to as intensely as you want to, but it's not rooted in the real world.

- Using the government flexibly, to encourage allowances for things like this, is not a bad thing on its face. "Public private partnership" is more than whitewash.
Where is the "partnership" in this public-private partnership? Altruism...you are assuming property owner altruism as the primary means of delivering the goods. There is no evidence throughout modern history that private abutters--much less that many of them--will ALL buy that argument. This is wishful thinking.

- I disagree that a slight convolution of a trail through downtown Chelsea would disrupt passage if there were an otherwise straight path.
You have to go multiple blocks out of the way to get back on-target at that one break where physical width does not exist. That's more than a "slight" convolution. Then start piling on all the other detours from the other blocks where property is not available. Wayfinding gets completely shredded between all these non-contiguous pathlets. There's no so-called route to follow when the quantity of detours starts to resemble a Family Circus strip.

- the LNG terminal is obviously not going anywhere, either, but the undeveloped land around here is also not expanding. If there is any long range potential for a ROW through here, it should be considered now, not in 30 years.
This is factually false. Everett Terminal has signed on new customers within the last 18 months, and business is up on the Chelsea River docks. Future Massport dredging of the Harbor and Chelsea River are supposed to substantially increase the prospects of the port facilities all up and down the river. Privately-owned Everett Terminal does not have a site master plan in place yet since the port upgrades are many years away, but they will be required to submit one if they want to latch onto the public funding for the Chelsea River deepwater projects. The slack space onsite will be crammed full of more deepwater port-related facilities in the future. It is that important to the public-private strategy for the state's ports.

There will be no ROW through here. There is nothing to consider...not now, and definitely not in 30 years when all that deepwater port land is filled out.
 
Fine but nonetheless I will repeat I am not advocating for chopping people's backwards out for a trail. Period. And re: your last point, I am saying this is one of the last low density areas around. Either way, I'll take your word for it being impossible.
 
whigh: raw population is misleading: in 1960 -1970 something like 50% of population was kids (who walked to stuff) and another 10% was a stay at home mom (who did not make commute trips)

We demand way more mobility per capita because households are now dominated by 2 wage earners who each own a car and make a daily commute trip.

Arlington -- point made

Yes the structure of households has changed as has the expectations for private space and such -- you aren't going to fit 3 generations into one 3 decker today even if you wanted to and except for homeless shelters and illegal ones rooming houses are officially gone

And before someone calls me on it I will place a caveat on the comparison of Boston and Austin -- most particularly that Austin is growing in area through annexation of peripheral subdivisions as they are developed -- today's land area 264.9 sq mi (686 km2) is almost 5.5X Boston's 48.42 sq mi (125.41 km2)
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Annexation/Annexations_by_Decade.pdf

Meanwhile Boston has been static in populated land area for about 100 years [since Hyde Park was annexed in 1912] with the only growth in land being due to some filling in Southy and of course Logan's expansion since WWII
 
Arlington -- point made

Yes the structure of households has changed as has the expectations for private space and such -- you aren't going to fit 3 generations into one 3 decker today even if you wanted to and except for homeless shelters and illegal ones rooming houses are officially gone

And before someone calls me on it I will place a caveat on the comparison of Boston and Austin -- most particularly that Austin is growing in area through annexation of peripheral subdivisions as they are developed -- today's land area 264.9 sq mi (686 km2) is almost 5.5X Boston's 48.42 sq mi (125.41 km2)
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Annexation/Annexations_by_Decade.pdf

Meanwhile Boston has been static in populated land area for about 100 years [since Hyde Park was annexed in 1912] with the only growth in land being due to some filling in Southy and of course Logan's expansion since WWII

Which is why the Census Bureau created the handy, dandy Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); to account for the anomalies of structure of metropolitan areas (some largely monolithic, some fragmented into many cities and towns, like Boston).

2015 Boston MSA population 4.77 million (#10 in the US)
2015 Austin MSA population 2.00 million (#33 in the US)

But, even in the MSA context, Austin is growing quickly (16.6% year over year versus 4.9% for Boston). Also note that this kind of growth is not just Austin, all the Texas MSAs are growing at double digit rates.
 
The anomalies of MSAs still exist due to arbitrary county borders, though. Use the Urban area population as reported by the US Census. There is no reason to use MSA during this discussion.

Boton: 4.2 million
Austin: 1.4 million
 
Which is why the Census Bureau created the handy, dandy Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); to account for the anomalies of structure of metropolitan areas (some largely monolithic, some fragmented into many cities and towns, like Boston).

2015 Boston MSA population 4.77 million (#10 in the US)
2015 Austin MSA population 2.00 million (#33 in the US)

But, even in the MSA context, Austin is growing quickly (16.6% year over year versus 4.9% for Boston). Also note that this kind of growth is not just Austin, all the Texas MSAs are growing at double digit rates.

Jeff - no one is comparing the economic impact of Boston with Austin -- what is being discussed is whether there is a need to "land bank" empty parking lots and such in Chelsea to provide a possible hike/bike path in the future

Boston is depending on the specific measure one of the top 10 or so economic areas on the planet -- e.g. 6th greatest GDP per capita just behind Geneva and paradoxically Hartford CT [misspelled as Hatford on the web page] and "A.T. Kearney's ‘Global Elite.’ Beyond New York and London the Global Elite includes Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, San Francisco, Boston, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Sydney and Melbourne.”
 
Jeff - no one is comparing the economic impact of Boston with Austin -- what is being discussed is whether there is a need to "land bank" empty parking lots and such in Chelsea to provide a possible hike/bike path in the future

Boston is depending on the specific measure one of the top 10 or so economic areas on the planet -- e.g. 6th greatest GDP per capita just behind Geneva and paradoxically Hartford CT [misspelled as Hatford on the web page] and "A.T. Kearney's ‘Global Elite.’ Beyond New York and London the Global Elite includes Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, San Francisco, Boston, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Sydney and Melbourne.”

Whighlander, understood. I am not sure how population alone, or growth alone is a good indication about the need for landbanking. Seems like questions of population density, buildout projections/patterns, locations of population/business centers and available or lacking connectivity options are more germane.
 
Ugh...

http://www.chelsearecord.com/2016/0...arts-of-silver-line-washington-avenue-bridge/

“There is a funding issue with the construction of Phase 2,” said City Manager Tom Ambrosino. “I believe the MBTA is putting in a TIGER grant for the funding. We’re hoping that will be successful. If that doesn’t work, we’ll have to look at alternate options. We’re certainly hoping that works out. It’s an important project for Chelsea and for the state.”

Phase 2 of the project includes relocating the commuter rail station from its current location and building a brand new station adjacent to the Mystic Mall. It also includes building a Silver Line Station downtown under the Washington Avenue Bridge – a station that is believed to be the busiest in the entire new network. Phase 2 also includes the signals at all grade intersections.

ugh well I hope they get funding. Bellingham Sq station is a crucial stop, along with moving the commuter rail station to a new station with high level platforms behind Market Basket. Although I think the city and the state are committed building this project so it will get done so they will find other funding to finish it, if this TIGER grant doesn't get approved.
 
Hey All -

It's time for another monthy installment of Silver Line Gateway photos!

As far as the construction itself, it's all about little bits here and there (as you'll see below). There's just enough small changes and work areas to know that the project is just humming along.

Today while I was taking photos, they were working, so pictures of the underside of the Washington Ave bridge, and whatever they were doing at the Sixth street crossing, I didn't get any pictures of! But this means we'll have new stuff to look at regardless next month when I take those pictures! (I just don't wanna be that weird guy taking photos of construction people!)

If you'd like to see the previous photo sets they can be found here by clicking on the links below:
Pics from 4/25/15
Pics from 6/20/15
Pics from 8/1/15
Pics from 9/19/15
Pics from 10/31/15
Pics from 1/9/16
Pics from 3/12/16
Pics from 4/16/16

And if you'd like to see the ALL of NEW photos, you can click here

Now for the highlights..

Here's looking at Eastern Ave Station from Eastern Ave. The area is all clean now and free of dirt piles. Looks like something may be starting here soon.

26741571380_4b9697ef20_c.jpg


---

Here's looking into the busway toward Eastern Ave station from the Bellingham Street bridge. I'm not sure what going where those cement forms are, but we'll find out soon enough.

26409961444_8b9ae78573_c.jpg


---

Here's looking into the busway toward Box District station from the Bellingham Street bridge. Looks like they are finalizing drainage work.

27015511965_a886c866a2_c.jpg


---

Here's looking into the busway from Willow street toward the Bellingham Street bridge. Not sure why the dirt is so high and the busway is in a crevice.

26409982404_a45f0c2337_c.jpg


---

The drainage work near the Atlas Lofts seems to be done (near Library Street).

26982117246_7e4d1ccf2c_c.jpg


---

Box District Station with the gates open.

26411797593_277870eee4_c.jpg


---

Box District Station with the utility work being done.

26947355751_63d792f973_c.jpg


---

Looking toward Bellingham Sq Station & the Washington Ave bridge from the Broadway bridge. It appears some grading for the shared use path is getting done.

26921442882_8d5477cbb1_c.jpg


---

Looking toward the Broadway bridge from the reconstruction portion of the Washington Ave bridge. More grading work in the shared use path.

26411849703_cc0325e033_c.jpg


---

Here's what's left of the old high voltage utility pole (and the new on the left). Also here is the foundation for the retaining wall for the MGH parking lot.

26947426861_75cab40625_c.jpg


---

Looking into the busway from Everett Ave. As you can see the foundation for the retaining wall is being built and the forms for the finished wall beyond that.

27015637355_c96cb9d74c_c.jpg


---

Yay people working in the distance (at Spruce street) (my guess is they were actually moving the tracks a bit!).

26947434761_4ba4286530_c.jpg


---

Chelsea Station and the FBI building in the background.

26947441711_648efeb283_c.jpg


---

That's it. So lots of little changes and progress. More pics to come in a month!
 
Cybah, Thanks SO MUCH for these excellent updates!
 
Cybah, Thanks SO MUCH for these excellent updates!

Thanks. I know this is a bad thing to say to this crowd but.. I was wondering if it was too much or too frequent?

It's odd when I take these. I drive (with a car) the route on my way home from Market Basket (i drive the route backwards) and I usually don't see too too much being done at a glance. So I go "ehhh I won't take pictures".. then I look at the date and realize, OK if I don't do this it could be weeks before I am able to do so.. so I get out and walk.

THEN I see some progress and it kinda makes it worth it..

Am I doing it too much or should I keep on doing this at the once a month rate? Anything that I SHOULD be including that I am not?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top